chuckw Posted September 28, 2009 Share #61 Posted September 28, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) so shoot softer and sharpen afterwards or shoot sharp and be forced to destroy the detail because it is contaminated?.... That is an interesting question, and a bit of a dilemma. It should be remembered, however, that many things that we want to be sharp (faces for example) are not objects that introduce a severe moire problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Hi chuckw, Take a look here More m9 from Erwin Puts. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
UliWer Posted September 28, 2009 Share #62 Posted September 28, 2009 i don't need to read puts to see from m9 raw files that the m9 has a severe moire problem....the "extra" detail is mostly destroyed by color moire clearly visible in fabric and even hair (black hair in sunlight looks awful)....this has nothing to do with d3x or any online review....get some raw files, shoot the camera, see for yourself....... Now we have seen some moiré on the online photos of the D3 in Puts' test which we didn't see on the photos of M8 and M9. This was explained as a result of compressing for online presentation. I am interested to see the moiré in uncompressed raw files from the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted September 28, 2009 Share #63 Posted September 28, 2009 That is an interesting question, and a bit of a dilemma. It should be remembered, however, that many things that we want to be sharp (faces for example) are not objects that introduce a severe moire problem. highlights on skin in bright sunlight show color artifacts, eyebrows will show moire....of course all this depends on the processing as well, but it seems the more aggressive (sharper, more detail,...) the software (C1)...the worse it gets....which makes sense.... i guess my point is that with R glass on the 5DII i get files as crisp and sharp and "3D" (after normal software sharpen) as with the m8 (with sharpen disabled)....only twice as big....enabling sharpen on the m8 only brings out all the stuff the m9 seems to have and can't get rid of....i find the m8 files hold up really well when sharpened after converted/processed (as 16bit TIFFs)...... anyway, i am sure the m9 will make a lot of people very happy and will create some great shots....different software will produce different results and with leica (as with the m8), who knows what firmwares will bring in the future... but for me, taking a step back after the initial excitement....this is not what i was hoping for....and i doubt a future m10 or whatever will change that....in the years since the m8 was announced the gap (to canon, nikon) has not gotten smaller and that won't change in the future..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted September 28, 2009 Share #64 Posted September 28, 2009 What he actually says is that "It is natural to assume that Fuji could be involved". Not the same as saying Fuji is involved. What's more interesting is that he says that the X1 sensor "is the same one employed in the Nikon D300". Which if its true, and not just a slip in translation, is very significant; you can't buy a Nikon sensor from Sony, even if it is manufactured by Sony, only from Nikon themselves. Sandy For what ever it is worth, during the Australian launch the Leica distributor staff placed considerable emphasis on the comparison between the D300 sensor and that in the forthcoming X1. The X1 prototype (they had) was non-functional though and no test images could be made. I had understood that the X1 connection was actually another prominent electronics and camera company (not Japanese). However that is entirely anecdotal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted September 29, 2009 Share #65 Posted September 29, 2009 Ohh nooo, another paradigm shift!!!:eek: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted September 29, 2009 Share #66 Posted September 29, 2009 Moire appears at/beyond Nyquist-limit, so whenever it appears it wouldn't contain any information with an AA-filtered system without moire. AA-filters have to reduce contrast to zero at Nyquist, but they already reduce contrast below and therefore DESTROY information. This lost information cannot be restored with any kind of sharpening! Moire with unfiltered systems is ugly and has to be removed/made in invisible by hand - but it's the only way to get all detail! The real solution is oversampling with high-resolution beyond lens performance and then downsample the image to this performance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 29, 2009 Share #67 Posted September 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am a bit puzzled - we did discuss this kind of " moire" in several threads, the most elaborate one started by Nicoleica - and it turned out is was pseudo-moire, caused by different demosaicing algorithms in various raw converters, with C1 being the one that eliminated the effect. I am certainly not claiming that a sensor without AA filter does not show moire - of course it does, but I am disputing that the example Mr Puts shows in his 100% crop is true moire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted September 29, 2009 Share #68 Posted September 29, 2009 One benefit of sensors that significantly out resolve the lenses, is the reduction or elimination of artifacts without filtering. The lens in essence is the low pass filter. This of course is not the case with most Leica lenses and today's sensors, but may well be so in the future if sensor pixel pitch gets into the 4 micron range. When testing lenses on an M8, I use a subject that has some content that will generate moire (cross hatched lines ), and I know that resolution has increased as I stop down when I see moire, and decreased when as I continue to stop down the moire disappears. Regards ... Harold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 30, 2009 Share #69 Posted September 30, 2009 I did not really understand his graphs. What are the segments that he refers to in his tests? The eight points of the Siemens star. Oops! My error. Erwin has added an explanation of the graphs and techniques to the end of the article M9, part2. (When he gets ahead of us, he's always willing to clarify. ) Thanks, Mr Puts! The Siemens star: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/98184-more-m9-from-erwin-puts/?do=findComment&comment=1056567'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 30, 2009 Share #70 Posted September 30, 2009 In his blog he declares that traditional / current methods of lens testing (MTF) have to be redefined in function of today high-MP sensors... I am terrified at the idea of how his pages will be understandable with the new methods... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted September 30, 2009 Share #71 Posted September 30, 2009 http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/THE_LEICA_M9_REVIEW.html This – page three – shows some serious examples of moiré patterning on a ribbed metal silo structure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 30, 2009 Share #72 Posted September 30, 2009 The X1 prototype (they had) was non-functional though and no test images could be made. They have functional prototypes or pre-production models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam.meier Posted October 1, 2009 Share #73 Posted October 1, 2009 After all, the core of any digital camera is the sensor used. I´m sure the M9´s Kodak sensor is moireless 90% of the images and resolution is stunning (that is with all sensors around 20 MP). But if you ever get to shoot a DP1 or DP2 with Sigma´s Foveon (horrible handling, by the way, freaky colors) you will clearly see the drawback of a Bayer Sensor resolutionwise. Digital image quality is still in its infantry, I can´t wait for per-pixel-sharpness, extended dynamic range and better iso performance. But so far there seem to be no quantum leaps to be expected in the near future. but for me, taking a step back after the initial excitement....this is not what i was hoping for....and i doubt a future m10 or whatever will change that....in the years since the m8 was announced the gap (to canon, nikon) has not gotten smaller and that won't change in the future..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.